The Property Ombudsman expulsions continue as four agencies feel the wrath of the largest residential estate agency Ombudsman. Four separate estate and letting agents have been expelled from membership of The Property Ombudsman (TPO) and from registration for lettings redress for two or more years, after failing to pay awards made by the Ombudsman or to comply with parts of the TPO Code of Practice for Residential Letting Agents.

The expulsions follow complaints from landlords and tenants. In three cases, rent totalling over £9,000 had not been passed to the respective landlords. The complaints were upheld by the Ombudsman, who ordered payment of the money to those owed, together with compensation.  TPO members are required to comply with any award and/or direction given by the The Property Ombudsman and accepted by the complainants. To date, all four agents failed to make payments.

Winchester Lettings Ltd, in south London, was referred to the scheme’s Disciplinary and Standard’s Committee (DSC) after failing to pay an award of £750 made to a landlord who complained about poor service.  This agent does not now appear to be trading.

Miaisa Ltd trading as Gallery@HD1 in Huddersfield, was directed to pay £2,312 in rent due to a landlord and an additional award of £300 made by the Ombudsman, who upheld the complaints. They were also directed to transfer £975 of tenant deposits. When the case was referred to the DSC, the company was in a voluntary arrangement with its creditors but is now in liquidation. Another company with the same director had previously traded as Gallery and also gone into liquidation. TPO understands that the director has now set up a new company which is ALSO trading as Gallery.  Contrary to its website and on Rightmove, it is not a member of TPO.

iBuild Property Management Ltd (trading as iLettings UK), in Hull, was ordered to pay £350 in relation to its behaviour towards the complainant. It is not clear whether or not ilettings UK is still trading.

The final agent is Clapham Lettings Ltd (traded as Nelsons). Clapham Lettings covered only one of the three offices under the Nelsons brand, and no longer seems to be trading. The other Nelsons branches are operated by separate companies with separate TPO membership which is not affected by this decision.

Clapham Lettings Ltd failed to pay awards in two separate cases. The first complaint was by a tenant who said Clapham Lettings had not passed on his deposit or initial rent payment to the landlord. The Ombudsman upheld the complaint and ordered the company to pay over £4,000 to the landlord and £250 to the tenant.  The second complaint was from a landlord owed over £2,800 in rent, which tenants had paid to the agent but the agent had not passed on. As well as ordering Clapham Lettings to hand over the rent, the Ombudsman made an award of £350.

Without registration these companies cannot legally trade as letting agents and other redress schemes will not allow previously expelled agents to join. Landlords who lease their property with an agent that is not registered with TPO will not be entitled to have their dispute reviewed by the Property Ombudsman, nor will any tenants renting through an unregistered agent.

Since all or most of the companies in question appear to have ceased trading the decision by the DSC to expel them from membership is unlikely to have any direct effect. However, the cases against them would affect a decision to allow any other company with the same Director to join TPO in the future. Two of the agents have already made an attempt to register as another company. All the agents have been referred to local trading standards departments by TPO.

Gerry Fitzjohn, Chairman of the TPO Board, said, “Cases like these are rare, with TPO facilitating early resolutions between agents and consumers in a vast majority of cases. However, in all four of these cases, the agents have not co-operated fully and have failed to pay awards made, and in some of the cases, monies owed.

I  remind agents of their obligation to co-operate with any investigations by TPO. The Ombudsman requires any evidence they can provide and that is their chance to put across their side of the story. While the vast majority of agents do co-operate, the small number who do not do so, put themselves at greater risk of having a complaint upheld, when The Ombudsman has only the consumer’s evidence to consider. Cases of non-compliance are taken very seriously and are dealt with by the Disciplinary and Standards Committee of the TPO Council.”